|
|
#41
11-16-2005, 06:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
[ QUOTE ]
you've got some serious learning to do. [/ QUOTE ] A little childish, wouldn't you say? And yes, I'm responding to a condescending post with one of my own. [ QUOTE ] and you're so hyper-focused on one or two comments that should be so obvious they don't NEED further discussion that, by your own admission, you DIDN'T EVEN READ THE WHOLE THREAD before making up your mind about the type of responses you were getting! [ QUOTE ] Let's just say he raised with JJ. Well, when the King flops, will he call down when I three bet him preflop? Probably not. But maybe. [/ QUOTE ] ridiculous. why must you have a K? why will he fold against a single, non-A overcard? [/ QUOTE ] Why? Because that is my read on him. If you post a hand and say a player is tight aggressive, do I need to ask you why? I saw him lay down a lot after the flop, what more do you want me to tell you? Just because you don't like the read, doesn't mean it is wrong. Again, in this particular case, he folded just as I expected him to do 2 times out of 3. I don't how to argue my side of this discussion... a read is a read. There is no way to validate it except by results. My results here validated my read. I don't understand why this bothers you so much. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] On the turn... raise wasn't an option here. Period. I never saw this player raise. Ever. Over 500 hands. [/ QUOTE ] This is complete and utter b.s. Whether it's true or not. Either you have this information, or you don't. Not providing it until you've decided you can't be right unless incredibly specific, incredibly obviously important information, which has previously been known ONLY TO YOU has been the source of some of the worst threads on this board. [/ QUOTE ] Another angry listener. Please read my initial post. The second sentence in the initial paragraph states: Button is a classic calling station. NEVER raises, just calls. He only bets with a big hand when checked to, otherwise you can be sure he will call with something and fold with nothing. My read on him was CLEARLY posted. Why you are getting all huffy about this, again, I don't know. How did I manage to piss you off here? [ QUOTE ] Like historically terrible posts where people make bad plays, justify them ex post facto, and provide reads and information sporadically as people detail why their play was bad, ultimately "proving" how correct they really were, every step of the way. If only the rest of us would open our minds. [/ QUOTE ] I didn't give all information in my initial post. Some things I didn't think were important. Am I the first to do this? No, I'm not. In any case, I'm really sorry you have nothing to contribute to this thread, except to blast me because you disagree with me. This is really becoming a sorry excuse for a post. If you'd like, I'll start posting all my hands where AA gets busted and ask if I played it badly. Nice and standard, just the way you like it. [ QUOTE ] If you're educating us, make it clear in your o.p. If you're making a string of opponent specific moves that really won't ever be applicable ever, outside of this hand, consider not posting. But if you feel the need to post, explain in your o.p. why you went that route. [/ QUOTE ] For the last time... the point of this post was twofold. First, to find out how others vary there play and see if they agreed with mine. Second, to find out if my play was OK postflop. I have been shown that I was wrong in betting into the calling station postflop. It was not a great decision. Would I do it next time? No, it was definitely -EV. So, if nothing else, I did learn something from the post, as I'd hoped to. Isn't that what this forum is all about? 
|
|
#42
11-16-2005, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Finally, I disagree with you about varying preflop play. I think that is a very common error. If I do nothing but 3 bet with AA, KK, QQ, and AK, then I won't get a whole lot of action postflop. Your preflop play sets up your postflop action, and therefore is just as important, in my opinion, as the rest of the hand. Therefore, varying it is also just as important. [/ QUOTE ] This couldn't be less true at the Party 2/4. [/ QUOTE ] Word. [/ QUOTE ] We'll all just have to disagree then. If every player playing 2/4 at Party is the same, is a fish, and is not paying attention, then that would explain why I can't make 10BB an hour... because I believe every player is different and has a varying degree of not only knowledge and ability, but also paying attention to what is going on at the table. When you play 6 tables 8 hours a day (which I don't do, BTW.. I couldn't play that many tables if I wanted to.), other players see you regularly. Not all players are regulars. Not all players are on every day. Not all players are good, knowledgeable, etc. But the ones that AREN'T giving up money by making mistakes ARE the ones that are getting reads on you. If you aren't giving off some change of pace plays, you are losing EV against these players. And, who do you think you will play against most often over the course of a year? It's these players that you will see most often. Generic fish that don't know what's happening at the table will come and go... but you will see the good players most often, because they are playing most often. Even at 2/4 on Party. If there weren't good players playing Party 2/4, there would be no Party 2/4 posts on 2+2.
|
|
#43
11-16-2005, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
If you're going to post a hand in which the wisdom or donky-ness of your play depends on incredibly specific reads that will generate incredibly specific post-flop responses, then you need to include those reads in the original post (or consider not posting it, as it contains little to educate and little to comment upon). And for the love of God, do not include in the original post a read that contradicts the "pull a read out later to justify my play" expansion on the original read. Your OP described MP2 as LAGgy pre-flop and either jamming or folding after the turn post-flop. That read does not even resemble "he will fold for one bet in a big pot if the flop misses him." I am not arguing with the nature of your read - I am pointing out that your expanded read contradcits the original read you provided to your readers.
My fifth point was simply that you have four players, including two blinds, to act behind you. even if "calling station" doesn't carry over to pre-flop play, you've got four hands behind you, any one of which could be a solid hand. This fact impacts the wisdom of three-betting 76s. On the 76s versus 72o distinction. I don't get your argument at all. The play has +EV IYO because of the specific reads, not the intrinsic value of the hand. Even if you now want to include intrinsic hand value, the argument that 'I have better chances to flop something worth fighting over' is pretty much totally negated when it's apparent that you'll fight even when you flop nothing. Also, it's a poor habit to adopt results-oriented justifications for plays. You "accounted" for big pairs because he didn't cap pre-flop? How did you account for that at the time it was raised to you and you're contemplating fold-call-raise? And did this accounting also account for hands like TT - 77 that he might not cap? You don't retroactively say "this was +EV because he didn't cap me." Similarly, "I think the fact that MP2 folded the flop verifies my read more than anything else." Ugh. On a final point - I don't think anyone could read your "Am I the only one varying my play" post without coming away feeling condescended to; it is frankly dripping with defensiveness and condescension. You may very well not have intended it so, but perhaps in the future think carefully about the words you write and the sentiments they will likely express to your readers. My opinion on the hand is that it is rank spewing on a dimension not often seen. If you think it is an example of adjusting one's play to specific table reads worthy of comment, then you need to do a much better job of (1) providing detailed reads on your opponents (including the guys behind you who folded pre-flop), and (2) backing up the play of the hand, mathematically, to account for those times when your reads are not perfect (i.e., "I think this is very -EV normally, moderately -EV in some cases, and neutral to +EV in this specific case, because even if my reads are off and I don't get the pre-flop action I desired or the flop I was looking for, here is the expectation with this hand . . ."). But to repeat a point from before - if the worthiness of hand depends almost entirely on very intricate, specific reads, it's probably not a hand worthy of a post.
|
|
#44
11-16-2005, 07:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] this is one of those situations. Slightly -EV immediately, definitely +EV long term [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I just had some bad luck that button picked up a big hand. I estimate that the preflop play will work over 67% of the time in the situation presented, making the preflop play fine. [/ QUOTE ] You're arguing in circles and wasting everyone's time. [/ QUOTE ] So this play isn't +EV long term? I don't understand your point. 76s against most hands is -EV. But the situation makes it long term +EV. I really don't see how these two statements are going in circles. BTW, you took stuff from two different posts where I was answering two different questions, and tried to invalidate this entire thread. Are you a politician by any chance? [ QUOTE ] This hand is not worth 40+ posts. You've admitted (before contradicting yourself) that the play was -EV short term. There's only a disagreement about whether there's any advertising value at Party 2/4--that's really kind of a binary operation and not amenable to subtle analysis. If you've been getting good results, fine, go nuts. The animosity was ignited by you implicitly calling one of the best posters in this forum an automaton. Take a day off, come back and play nice, everything will be fine. [/ QUOTE ] The play, without the specific reads and situation, is definitely -EV. I don't think there is a single person in here that disagrees with this. However, given the specific situation, this is definitely +EV, as I have shown in my posts. I don't see how any of this information is contradictory. As for Entity... all I can say is I apologized to anyone who construed my comments to be directed at them. Continuing this issue further can only reaggravate it, which you seemingly are looking to do. All in all, another of the 40+ posts in here which really say nothing about the hand itself... which is the whole point of a hand posting. If everyone would stay on the discussion about the hands, and not try to continue to create a negative forum atmosphere (which I admittedly started and apologized for), this would be a much nice place to hang out [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#45
11-16-2005, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
But that's the thing Zoot, there is no hand to discuss... Everytime someone says something, you answer with what basically amounts to 'My read told me to do it'. Since none of us are you, and therefore don't have your reads, there is no hand to discuss.
|
|
#46
11-16-2005, 07:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
Wow. I'll make one final comment and then be done with the thread.
[ QUOTE ] So this play isn't +EV long term? I don't understand your point. 76s against most hands is -EV. But the situation makes it long term +EV. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The play, without the specific reads and situation, is definitely -EV. I don't think there is a single person in here that disagrees with this. However, given the specific situation, this is definitely +EV, as I have shown in my posts. [/ QUOTE ] You have not in any way, shape, or form shown that this hand is longterm +EV. You haven't even argued it - you've just asserted it. Could you direct me to the post or posts where you've shown that this is longterm +EV?
|
|
#47
11-16-2005, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
[ QUOTE ]
Could you direct me to the post or posts where you've shown that this is longterm +EV? [/ QUOTE ] Actually, I think I speak for the entire forum when I say, please, for the love of God, don't do this. I promise to answer all your future posts nicely if you just let this one die. Please.
|
|
#48
11-16-2005, 07:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to post a hand in which the wisdom or donky-ness of your play depends on incredibly specific reads that will generate incredibly specific post-flop responses, then you need to include those reads in the original post (or consider not posting it, as it contains little to educate and little to comment upon). And for the love of God, do not include in the original post a read that contradicts the "pull a read out later to justify my play" expansion on the original read. Your OP described MP2 as LAGgy pre-flop and either jamming or folding after the turn post-flop. That read does not even resemble "he will fold for one bet in a big pot if the flop misses him." I am not arguing with the nature of your read - I am pointing out that your expanded read contradcits the original read you provided to your readers. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you, Catt. I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough in my initial post. I did say this again when I specified the information later. I didn't even read where I said after the turn. It was supposed to be after the flop, and I just typed the wrong thing. Back in the old days, the flop was actually called the turn, and I still refer to it as such on ocassion when I'm not thinking. Not proofreading my post was my fault. [ QUOTE ] My fifth point was simply that you have four players, including two blinds, to act behind you. even if "calling station" doesn't carry over to pre-flop play, you've got four hands behind you, any one of which could be a solid hand. This fact impacts the wisdom of three-betting 76s. [/ QUOTE ] A solid hand doesn't necessitate a hand that can call a 3 bet. KQ is a solid hand. Many (not all) players, myself included, would not call a 3 bet with it. At the time, I judged my chances and made my play. Admittedly (and I have said this in previous posts), my evaluation of the odds was quite a bit off. [ QUOTE ] On the 76s versus 72o distinction. I don't get your argument at all. The play has +EV IYO because of the specific reads, not the intrinsic value of the hand. Even if you now want to include intrinsic hand value, the argument that 'I have better chances to flop something worth fighting over' is pretty much totally negated when it's apparent that you'll fight even when you flop nothing. [/ QUOTE ] All I'm saying is 76s makes the play more valuable than 72o, because 76s is a better hand. As I said before, AA would make this play more valuable, because it is a better hand. The play has value with 72o. Has MORE value with 76s, and has even more with AA. Simply stated, the better the hand the better the value on any play. However, in this specific situation, 72o is basically the same as 76s, if you are just playing the situation. If you are just playing the cards, no way can 76s be playable in any way. Combine the cards and the situation, and 76s is more valuable a play than 72o. [ QUOTE ] Also, it's a poor habit to adopt results-oriented justifications for plays. You "accounted" for big pairs because he didn't cap pre-flop? How did you account for that at the time it was raised to you and you're contemplating fold-call-raise? [/ QUOTE ] I accounted for big pairs by saying that the few times he has a big pair will be offset by the few times I flop a big hand. I said that the fact he didn't cap preflop verified that he did not have a big pair. Accounting for something in your calculations and having it verified by actions later are two different things. If I didn't explain this correctly, my apologies. [ QUOTE ] And did this accounting also account for hands like TT - 77 that he might not cap? You don't retroactively say "this was +EV because he didn't cap me." [/ QUOTE ] Again, I accounted for big pairs as above. As for hands like TT-77 or worse, I felt he was folding enough that he would have no trouble folding hands like this if an overcard came. [ QUOTE ] Similarly, "I think the fact that MP2 folded the flop verifies my read more than anything else." Ugh. [/ QUOTE ] How do you verify a read, just out of curiosity. I watched this player fold the flop a LOT during the time at the table before this hand. I said that. He folded again. All this is verification of a read, isn't it? [ QUOTE ] On a final point - I don't think anyone could read your "Am I the only one varying my play" post without coming away feeling condescended to; it is frankly dripping with defensiveness and condescension. You may very well not have intended it so, but perhaps in the future think carefully about the words you write and the sentiments they will likely express to your readers. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with you. [ QUOTE ] My opinion on the hand is that it is rank spewing on a dimension not often seen. If you think it is an example of adjusting one's play to specific table reads worthy of comment, then you need to do a much better job of (1) providing detailed reads on your opponents (including the guys behind you who folded pre-flop), and (2) backing up the play of the hand, mathematically, to account for those times when your reads are not perfect (i.e., "I think this is very -EV normally, moderately -EV in some cases, and neutral to +EV in this specific case, because even if my reads are off and I don't get the pre-flop action I desired or the flop I was looking for, here is the expectation with this hand . . ."). But to repeat a point from before - if the worthiness of hand depends almost entirely on very intricate, specific reads, it's probably not a hand worthy of a post. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this. This has been said several times now. I didn't give all information necessary initially, and as I've said several times now, I'm sorry. Don't know what else you are trying to accomplish here but to get me to say I'm sorry again... So, Catt... I'm sorry I didn't get all the relevant information in the initial post.
|
|
#50
11-16-2005, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preflop bluff turns into money by the river
[ QUOTE ]
But that's the thing Zoot, there is no hand to discuss... Everytime someone says something, you answer with what basically amounts to 'My read told me to do it'. Since none of us are you, and therefore don't have your reads, there is no hand to discuss. [/ QUOTE ] Yako... how often do you respond to a hand posting and completely discount the reads? Because someone has a read on a player in a hand, do you not bother to post because it has a read? I don't understand what your point is here. I made a play based on reads and, admittedly faulty, calculations. Based on those reads, and the calculations I've given, do you agree and disagree with my preflop play? Please specify why you agree or disagree. Now we come to the flop... again, do you agree or disagree with what I did and why? Same with the turn and river. I don't see how this is hard to do. If you look at many of the posts, like ErrantNights for example. He doesn't say much about the hand, just that I can't have the read I have. So, of course I respond about the read and not the hand. If people concentrate on the hand, we can discuss the hand. If you concentrate on everything else, well... the hand and decisions in that hand are lost. This post and my reply are just more posts that have nothing to do with the hand postings.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
